Reflections In Glass

This book is a battle for the soul of Australia's Anglicans, in which the foe is the influential Sydney diocese, often characterised as fundamentalist.

The differences are so stark that the Australian church has been described as two great tectonic plates that occasionally move and grate upon one another.

Peter Carnley, who announced last month he would step down next year as the head of the nation's Anglicans, joins the battle on several fronts where "Sydney Anglicanism" is at odds with "mainstream Anglicanism".

But the most important debate concerns the doctrine of the atonement, over which Carnley became embroiled in a row with the Sydney church just before he became primate in 2000.

He identifies this doctrine as one of the key tests of faith for fundamentalists, as opposed to other Anglicans, and indeed Christianity historically.

The atonement refers to the purpose and meaning of Christ's death and resurrection. Why did he die and what did he achieve?

Sydney Anglicanism - along with traditional Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine - teaches the so-called penal substitutionary theory, that God's justice required satisfaction for sin that humanity could not provide.

So God, by his love, fulfilled the requirement himself in Christ. Christ bore on the cross the punishment for our sins.

Carnley criticises this view as late and feudal (it was systematised only by Anselm in the 11th century).

It is inadequate especially because it portrays God as "uncompromisingly cruel" and because of the rough justice perpetrated on the innocent Christ.

Carnley says evangelicals are wrong to make this doctrine a central tenet and wrong to speak with such certainty about a transcendent mystery.

He compares theology with a dartboard: core beliefs belong in the bullseye, and others radiate from them.

He regards the atonement as belonging to the outer circle because it was not defined by the councils of the undivided church or the creeds.

In my view, he is wrong to move the atonement from the bullseye. The significance of what Christ has done for believers has always been central - the church believed from the start that it was redeemed by Christ by grace.

The early church councils did not consider this doctrine because they dealt with contemporary controversies such as the Trinity and the person of Christ, but the atonement (as justification by faith) was a key debate of the Reformation a millennium later.

Carnley is wrong also to portray this interpretation in terms of justice rather than love: nothing could better demonstrate the love of God. As James writes: "mercy triumphs over judgement" (James 2:13).

The criticism that only a vengeful God demands that the innocent pay for the guilty collapses because the innocent is God himself; he is not demanding it from someone else.

Surely self-sacrifice is noble rather than cruel.

Carnley is right to remind us that the church has explained the cross in other terms, such as sacrifice (though, of course, the Old Testament background to that is also partly expiation), redemption and reconciliation with God, but wrong to imagine that evangelicals do not take these concepts seriously.

Carnley believes lay presidency - in which laypeople preside at the communion table as well as priests - undermines ordained ministry.

He warns that the world's 39 Anglican primates oppose it, and have a strategy if it is pursued. Internal discipline will be handled in Australia, and intercommunion with other churches by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

He also criticises the church's appellate tribunal (which in 1997 declared there was no constitutional or legal impediment to the general synod allowing lay presidency) as misunderstanding leadership and following a secular, commercial model.

On women bishops he is unequivocal, as befits the first Australian archbishop to ordain women priests (in 1992): the church should embrace the possibility without further ado.

But he does believe a compromise will be necessary in the short-term to provide alternative oversight for dissident parishes under a woman bishop.

He embraces the positive possibilities of biotechnology and gene therapy and argues (by way of permitting embryo research) that life begins after a couple of weeks. That is the last stage twinning can occur, before which it is incoherent to speak of a unique human individual.

One of his best chapters is on liberalism (he considers himself not liberal but progressive orthodox), ecumenism and other religions.

On the shortcomings of tolerance as the basis for a multicultural society, he is positively prophetic.

As an enlightenment ideal, tolerance is important but not by itself robust enough to sustain a harmonious community.

Carnley wears his erudition lightly but takes us down some fascinating byways, such as how the doctrine of the Trinity can help balance individual and community interests.

He has the gift of discussing deep issues in an accessible way and is always intelligent, interesting and challenging.

If he is right that only rational and open discussion can bridge the divide with Sydney, this legacy to the church has at least built the foundations.